Talk:List of dependent territories

I take it that the discussion below is now of less significance to the current form of the page which appears to exclude completely uninhabited places but not distinguish between others - I can't make it out from the history, but have I got that right?

On that basis can I make a some suggestions which should maybe wait for the poll on Akrotiri and Dhekelia at Template talk:Europe and should perhaps co-ordinate with what is going on at Special member state territories and their relations with the EU? There are 3 British Crown Dependencies Guernsey, Jersey, and Isle of Man;

plus

14 British Overseas Territories - Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena and Dependencies (Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

The list on this page misses out -

British Antarctic Territory - just has researchers there, but so do South Georgia and South Sandwich

Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia - sounds like just a military base, but actually has about 7,000 Cypriot civilian permanent inhabitants not related to the bases (plus further temporarily posted 7,000 UK civilians and military connected to the bases) - whereas BIOT is listed here although it is purely a US military base (Diego Garcia) from which all the inhabitants (Ilois or Chagossians) were deported, and St Helena plus its dependencies have large military presence (on Ascension) with about same non-military-related population as SBAs.Civil Servant 14:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The thing is:

• The areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not Cypriot territory, they are British territory, where British law is applicable. BIOT is made of some islands that are British Territory too. I don't see any differences. "Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia - sound like just a military base". Yes it sounds, but a military base is not Akrotiri and Dhekelia. The areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia contain military bases. For instance, Guantanamo is not american territory. It is Cuban territory rented to the USA. Guatanamo is different from Ak. & Dhek.--Joao Campos 02:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What counts as inhabited

Palmyra Atoll has no indigenous inhabitants, but 4 to 20 Nature Conservancy staff and US Fish and Wildlife staff. Please see CIA - The World Factbook -- Palmyra Atoll (http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/lq.html#People). Pædia 15:48, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

That is a July 2003 estimate. Check http://nature.org/wherewework/asiapacific/palmyra/ and http://nature.org/wherewework/asiapacific/palmyra/faqs/index.html. Who do you trust the CIA or TNC? older≠wiser 19:52, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

You are totally correct to call it uninhabited, by definition. However, in the context of this article, it probably belongs under heading 2; the last Nature Conservancy Press Release (http://nature.org/wherewework/asiapacific/palmyra/press/) was January 18, 2001. Pædia 09:23, 2004 May 31 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the distinction is supposed to indicate. There are likely "visitors" to most of the U.S. islands that are designated Wildlife Refuges. To me the word uninhabited means there are no permanent residents. Just about anyplace can have visitors--I don't understand the point of making such a distinction. older≠wiser 21:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In my interpretation, Inhabited means "lived in by permanent residents", Stationed personnel or visitors means "permanently staffed or visited regularly", and Uninhabited means "at most, visited about annually". Pædia 13:26, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the explanations should go with each header. Maybe I'm the only one confused, but I don't find the second heading to be self-explanatory. I also think there is a big difference between a place with permanently stationed personnel and places that do not have permanent residents (though they may be visited occasionally). older≠wiser 14:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In previous revisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=List_of_dependent_territories&oldid=3707465), the second heading read "Islands and territories with stationed or visiting personel" [sic]. I believe this to be misleading, as some regular visitors are fishermen not "personnel". We may agree on your last statement. Pædia 18:25, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)

You might be correct to move Ashmore and Cartier Islands (http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/at.html#People) to short-term visitors, although illegal immigrants from Indonesia's Rote Island and Indonesian fishermen do visit regularly. However, Palmyra Atoll does have "personnel stationed year-round". Thanks. Pædia 15:51, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

Ok, but where do you see that there are year-round personel at Palmyra? Except for the CIA fact file, everything I have seen describes it as uninhabited, which seems pretty unambiguous to me. older≠wiser 16:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Upon investigation, the most current publication is The World Factbook (July 2003 est.). Palmyra Atoll was "uninhabited" before July 2000. Please see CIA -- The World Factbook 2000 -- Palmyra Atoll (http://mapsandflags.com/lq.html#People). Pædia 22:41, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

To add?

Shouldn't Macau and Hong Kong be included in the list? And what about Western Sahara? Why are the Bassas da India, Tromelin Island, etc, listed under one territory?

Hong Kong and Macau shouldn't be listed since China considers them to be part of the country, a special administrative region, not a dependency. --Gangulf 21:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In terms of politics and government structures, Hong Kong and Macao are dependent territories, except for the rights of getting independence. Although many may associate the term "dependent territories" with colonies or trust territories that have to right to be independence, it's not necessary. A google search of "Hong Kong" and "dependency status" gives more than 5000 hits.

If anybody is not happy or is confused with the term "dependent territories", we may have to work out a better alternative. At the moment I can think of "non-sovereign entities" and "entities that are non-sovereign". Some sort of definitions will be necessary, such as the rights to issue currencies, to send delegations to international organisations, to have its own judiciary, customs and immigration policies, extradition, citizenship, etc. — Instantnood 10:29 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

Gangulf is right. The two SARS of Hong Kong and Macau have ceased to be "dependent" since they reverted back to Chinese rule in 1997 and 1999 respectively. I noticed they are also classified under "special territories", and that is much more plausible. Otherwise, will they be happy being classified under "autonomous territories?--Huaiwei 17:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although they are not colonies and theoretically no right to be independent, they are dependent territories. — Instantnood 21:23, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dependent of who? China? The opposite of an "independent" territory is not neccesarily a "dependent" one!--Huaiwei 21:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind telling how would you define the term "dependent territory"? — Instantnood 23:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Me? Well lets look at how the British (and Commonwealth) call a "dependent territory" instead:

• Dependent Territories (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page349.asp)

"A dependent territory is a territory belonging by settlement, conquest or annexation to the British, Australian or New Zealand Crown.

There are 14 British dependent territories, which are: British Indian Ocean Territory, Gibraltar, Bermuda, Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, British Antarctic Territory, St Helena and its dependencies (Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), Montserrat, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Anguilla, the Pitcairn Group of Islands, and the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus. Hong Kong, a former dependent territory, was handed back to China on 1 July 1997."

So....does the PRC call HK and Macau "dependent territories"? Does it rule these two places via "settlement, conquest or annexation"? Show us these...and then we shall talk further. It is hardly an issue of how I define things.--Huaiwei 05:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Overseas departments of the French Republic were also acquired by settlement, conquest or annexation. The definition of one of the sovereign states is not necessarily applicable to this list that involved many sovereign states. It needs a definition that allows generalisability and comparison among different sovereign states. — Instantnood 07:58, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh...so you feel it is neccesary to assume all countries defines "dependencies" the same way eh? So may I know if the PRC "acquired" HK by "settlement, conquest or annexation" in 1997?--Huaiwei 11:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did I say that? What I said was the definition of one of the sovereign states does not apply to all country. A definition with generalisability has to be worked out for this list. — Instantnood 11:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

You are implying that, isnt it obvious enough? Again I ask more specifically to the case in question here: Did the PRC "acquired" HK by "settlement, conquest or annexation" in 1997?--Huaiwei 11:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No I did not imply that. Quote the sentence if you insist I did. And no for the second question. — Instantnood 12:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

"It needs a definition that allows generalisability and comparison among different sovereign states." If you are not asking for a singular way of defining dependent territories using one general definition, then may I know what this line is for? So, the PRC did NOT "acquir" HK by "settlement, conquest or annexation" in 1997. What makes it a "dependent territory" of the PRC then, since it falls outside the definition of the Commonwealth countries?--Huaiwei 12:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did you read " The definition of one of the sovereign states is not necessarily applicable to this list that involved many sovereign states. "? This is a response to your quote of the definition on the British monarchy's website. — Instantnood 12:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed quite obvious that they interpret that term differently. Therefore again I ask two tings. Firstly, why do you then call for a generalised term to fit all those entities into one? Second, sure, they define dependencies differently. Now, have you showed us how the PRC defines her dependencies?--Huaiwei 12:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't there be a general definition that is useful and applicable to most cases? — Instantnood 13:08, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Isnt it also possible to have seperate sections for each "Controlling" country if the differences warrant it, since you yourself admitted there are differences, and yet at the same time want them amalgamated?--Huaiwei 13:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some of these sovereign states already do, but some people may argue some of the territories listed here are not dependent ones. — Instantnood 13:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh? Then why should they be here then?--Huaiwei 13:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they be here? — Instantnood 13:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Coz they are not dependent territories as you say?--Huaiwei 13:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did I? Alright then. — Instantnood 14:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh...So we shall remove them now? --Huaiwei 06:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did I say they are not dependent territories? — Instantnood 14:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Let us reread again the definitions as set out in Dependent area:

Dependent territories are commonly distinguished from subnational entities of the same country since they in most cases represent a different order of separation. A subnational entity typically represents a division of the country proper, while a dependent territory might be an overseas territory that enjoys a greater degree of autonomy.

And from subnational entities:

Subnational entity is a generic term for an administrative region within a country — on an arbitrary level below that of the sovereign state — typically with a local government encompassing multiple municipalities, counties, or provinces with a certain degree of autonomy in a varying number of matters. Confusingly, in countries that are not nation states, this may well mean that some or all "subnational" entities in reality are also national entities.

Subnational entities are conceptually separate from dependent areas so that the former are included in the core or mainland of the respective state.

Hong Kong and Macau, as subdivisions of the country of the People's Republic of China, and with a local government of high autonomy (we have to see how the on-going drama over the its choice of leader turns out thou)...is it a "dependent territory" or a "subnational entity" now?

It is becoming plain obvious.--Huaiwei 06:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then what they are? — Instantnood 14:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I would say after reading this discussion that they are subnational entities with an high degree of autonomy and not dependent territories. Gangulf 16:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spot on. ;) --Huaiwei 11:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Same quotes:

From Dependent area: " Dependent territories are commonly distinguished from subnational entities of the same country since they in most cases represent a different order of separation. A subnational entity typically represents a division of the country proper, while a dependent territory might be an overseas territory that enjoys a greater degree of autonomy. "

--> From this quote, everyone can tell the definition is not all encompassing.

From subnational entities: " Subnational entities are conceptually separate from dependent areas so that the former are included in the core or mainland of the respective state.

--> Hong Kong and Macao are obviously not considered as part of mainland China, or core parts of the PRC.

From subnational entities: " Subnational entity is a generic term for an administrative region within a country — on an arbitrary level below that of the sovereign state — typically with a local government encompassing multiple municipalities, counties, or provinces with a certain degree of autonomy in a varying number of matters. Confusingly, in countries that are not nation states, this may well mean that some or all "subnational" entities in reality are also national entities. "

--> I have read through the administrative division structure in the constitution of the PRC. Special administrative regions are not part of its administrative division system, which is prescribed by the Article 30. Article 31, which is on the special administrative region, does not say SARs are part of its division system. In other words, special administrative regions can also be posessions or colonies, and in the case of Hong Kong and Macao, dependent territories with no right to obtain independence, but at the same time are not integrated into the rest of the State. — Instantnood 09:18, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your recent edit is amusing. Everyone?? --Huaiwei 03:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The areas separately referred to as non-independent are territories that are disputed, are occupied, have a government in exile or have a non-negligible independence movement.

I'd like to renew objections to its inclusion here. While it may be de facto administered by the UN, it is still de jure an autonomous province of the Republic of Serbia, one of the two constituent republics of the sovereign state of Serbia and Montenegro, isn't it? At the very least, the case should be explained more clearly. john k 00:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)